|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 2:24:27 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4106
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
Why is that Dave?What is the harm,in searching out the ways and means of salvation? None whatsoever. However, when you find a case that leaves you empty handed who are we to manufacture an answer when none is apparent in scripture?
quote:
If we can't say for certain who,not as in individuals as no man can know,rather who as in category is accepted and rejected of God,how can we preach a gospel of inclusion and exclusion. We preach on what we know. If a gentile person makes the decision to make Jesus Lord in his/her life, they are born again and saved. If they do not make that choice they are condemned.
quote:
I believe that only God's children are saved regardless of age or mental condition.I haven't as yet ran across a scripture that supports any other position.I've seen God kill babies with indifference,why should I believe that he saves them just because there infants? However, none of them are God's children until they repent and choose salvation. (with the possible exception of Jewish children covered by the Covenants of Moses and Abraham) Even they must eventually make that choice as well. Look at Romans 11. Us gentiles are ALL BORN on the wild tree, and must be cut off and grafted into the cultivated one. Jewish children are born on the cultivated one but unless they embrace the faith of the New Covenant, they too are broken off.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 3:49:53 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FREELUTH
A very good article on the Lutheran view of this subject.
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trinfbap.html
I know some will disagree, put is always good to try and understand other Christians views.
FreeLuth,
I read the article. I pretty much knew the Lutheran teaching on Baptism although I didn't realize it was so hard-line regarding all babies who aren't baptized.
With that said, I will put forth a dilemma. I have 3 little grandchildren. None of them have been baptized because their parents are no longer Christians. My son has de-converted from the Christian faith.
So what are my options according to Lutheran teaching? Should I have my grandchildren baptized without the knowledge of their parents? If the parents discovered that I did such a thing, it would most likely damage my relationship with them, and thus, the impact of a Christian witness I could have in my grandchildrens' lives.
Or, should I just wait until my grandchildren are old enough and their parents allow them to make such a decision for themselves? Thus putting me in the position of pleading God that He will spare their lives and let them live till they are able to have the freedom to choose baptism.
Lutheran teaching is basically saying that babies of unbelievers are damned to Hell because the parents will not have them baptized. I cannot accept such a hard-line position, nor do I think that Christ is so cold-hearted toward infants, who cannot make the choice to be baptized on their own, and therefore are damned to Hell due to their parents' decisions.
Heavendweller
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 7:36:30 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1188
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
What Adam did was just as much part of God's plan as the Lamb heading to the cross before the foundation of the world...
I don't have a problem with that. My problem comes in saying the what Adam did has a greater effect on mankind than the Lamb heading to the cross.
It's more what God decreed than what Adam did...
Ahh, OK, I get it. God decreed sin for everyone, but not salvation for everyone.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 8:28:52 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1971
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ahh, OK, I get it. God decreed sin for everyone, but not salvation for everyone.
What makes you think that God Decreed sin for anyone...did not He tell Adam and Eve not to sin? Knowing that they would and decreeing are two different things.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 8:37:42 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7898
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
quote:
Ahh, OK, I get it. God decreed sin for everyone, but not salvation for everyone.
What makes you think that God Decreed sin for anyone...did not He tell Adam and Eve not to sin? Knowing that they would and decreeing are two different things. Bob
On the c/a thread, the reformists say that God's omniscience comes from what He decreed. iow, He only knows what He has decreed. Apparently you differ.
Do you believe that man sins from a free will? If not, then what causes him to sin? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 10:43:00 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1188
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
quote:
Ahh, OK, I get it. God decreed sin for everyone, but not salvation for everyone.
What makes you think that God Decreed sin for anyone...did not He tell Adam and Eve not to sin? Knowing that they would and decreeing are two different things.
Just tryin' to understand what SovereignIsHe is trying to say. I don't necessarily agree, but it sure seems like that's what he's saying.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 10:52:44 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
What Adam did was just as much part of God's plan as the Lamb heading to the cross before the foundation of the world...
I don't have a problem with that. My problem comes in saying the what Adam did has a greater effect on mankind than the Lamb heading to the cross.
It's more what God decreed than what Adam did...
Ahh, OK, I get it. God decreed sin for everyone, but not salvation for everyone.
God decreed what the consquences of Adam's sin would be...
John
< Message edited by SovereignIsHe -- 6/16/2008 10:58:56 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/16/2008 11:22:10 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1971
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Hi FreeGrace...
Having total awareness is not the same thing as having created or caused all things to happen. God did not create evil but He knew it would existed and He established a plan to overcome all evil in the end. All evil will not be transformed into good but ALL will either convert to good or bow to it before its eternal confinement.
People use Isaiah 45:7 to attempt to prove that God created both good and evil but that is not the correct reading;
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm,2 which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ‛âh,3 the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)
People use Lamentations 3:38 also in the effort to prove that God created both good and evil. Once again Lamentations 3:39 does not refer to moral evil but to calamites and judgment.
Lam 3:38: Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (KJV)
Lam 3:38: Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (NIV)
________________________________________________________________________
quote:
Do you believe that man sins from a free will? If not, then what causes him to sin? Thanks.
No… I do not believe man sins from free will…he sins because he has no control over the issue. Man is born into sin and cannot escape this condition unless God by His grace changes mans sinful condition.
Bob
< Message edited by bob97 -- 6/16/2008 11:28:36 PM >
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/17/2008 12:02:45 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1971
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
By the way FreeGrace...I'm not a reformer, I accept no man religious studies in total, what I understand of the Bible is pretty much my perceptive. The terms Calvinism and Arminianism doesn’t mean that much to me other than the fact my understanding would place me more in the Calvinism camp. As such I’m likely to step on a lot of toes. 
Bob
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/17/2008 7:38:10 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1188
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
God decreed what the consquences of Adam's sin would be...
Right. So, the consequence of Adam's sin is on all people but the consequence of the Cross (assuming God decreed that as well), is not?
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/17/2008 10:37:29 AM
|
|
|
FREELUTH
Posts: 111
Joined: 1/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: FREELUTH
A very good article on the Lutheran view of this subject.
http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trinfbap.html
I know some will disagree, put is always good to try and understand other Christians views.
FreeLuth,
I read the article. I pretty much knew the Lutheran teaching on Baptism although I didn't realize it was so hard-line regarding all babies who aren't baptized.
With that said, I will put forth a dilemma. I have 3 little grandchildren. None of them have been baptized because their parents are no longer Christians. My son has de-converted from the Christian faith.
So what are my options according to Lutheran teaching? Should I have my grandchildren baptized without the knowledge of their parents? If the parents discovered that I did such a thing, it would most likely damage my relationship with them, and thus, the impact of a Christian witness I could have in my grandchildrens' lives.
Or, should I just wait until my grandchildren are old enough and their parents allow them to make such a decision for themselves? Thus putting me in the position of pleading God that He will spare their lives and let them live till they are able to have the freedom to choose baptism.
Lutheran teaching is basically saying that babies of unbelievers are damned to Hell because the parents will not have them baptized. I cannot accept such a hard-line position, nor do I think that Christ is so cold-hearted toward infants, who cannot make the choice to be baptized on their own, and therefore are damned to Hell due to their parents' decisions.
Heavendweller
First let me say that I disagree with the the article on the salvation of unbaptized infants. I don't believe they are automaticly damned. I have said earlier that I trust God to do what is right and that I do not know what that is, but he will take care of it. I think the article was more one mans opinion that offical church teaching.
I would not secretly have my Grandchildren Baptized. I think it would be dishonest and a violation of God's law because of the deception. I would continue to pray and trust that God knows your grandchildren and that he knows and loves them and is watching out for them. Continue to be a witness to them and expose the whole family to as much of God's word as you can. The Holy Spirit works even when we do not know it !! I will pray for your son and his family.
Your Brother in Christ
Freelutheran.
_____________________________
My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/17/2008 10:46:42 AM
|
|
|
zoebob
Posts: 8767
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: land of limbo
Status: offline
|
I agree on the baptism of the infants. I belong to a church that baptizes infants but we don't think it saves them. It's merely a sign of them being a part of a covenant family and our belief of God's work in families. Our children are disciples of God from their birth because we disciple them from birth. If He is going to save someone it can happen at any time from conception to death.
_____________________________
L-R: DD1, Ellies DS2, DD2, Ellies DS1
L-R: Ellies DD1, Ellies DD2, DS, Ellies DS3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/17/2008 9:38:20 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1780
Status: offline
|
quote:
The thing I don't understand about this sin nature, though, is that, apparently, people are willing to believe that the sin of one man (Adam) was universal in its effects, but the sacrifice of one individual (Christ) was not universal in its effects. It seems to me that whatever the whole human race got (or would have gotten) from Adam has been completely canceled out for the whole human race by the gracious atoning work of Jesus Christ. But maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on Christ's sacrifice. Maybe it wasn't as powerful as Adam's sin.
Scripture does not leave us in the dark regarding the atoning work of Christ, nor about the universality of sin and its consequence death. The whole world is guilty before God (Rom.3:19).
"In Adam's Fall, we sinned all" is exactly what Scripture reveals (Rom. 5:12). But Scripture also reveals that the Lamb of God "took away" the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29)or became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2).
However, there are two conditions for salvation -- repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). Therefore the Gospel must be preached to "every creature", and the Gospel must be obeyed by every sinner in order to be saved.
Infants are incapable of responding to the Gospel, therefore God must have a provision for their salvation other than the above. Nonetheless, Scripture does not clearly address this matter, and to build a doctrine on silence is neither prudent nor necessary.
We must therefore simply commit infants who die to God's infinite grace, and allow for the fact that their sins were indeed atoned for at Calvary. As to the baptism of infants, it is a practice rooted in the false teaching of baptismal regeneration. Scripture is quite clear. Water baptism by immersion follows conversion (Acts 8:35-40). It cannot be equated to circumcision as some teach.
< Message edited by Ezra -- 6/17/2008 9:48:56 PM >
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/18/2008 10:57:12 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Infants are incapable of responding to the Gospel, therefore God must have a provision for their salvation other than the above. Nonetheless, Scripture does not clearly address this matter, and to build a doctrine on silence is neither prudent nor necessary.
We must therefore simply commit infants who die to God's infinite grace, and allow for the fact that their sins were indeed atoned for at Calvary. First off this is not the entire post of Ezra's.I am responding to the point he raised concerning infants salvation.The words have not been altered,nor have I taken it out of context.
I wanted to respond to the info in the post I felt was most relevant to the op.
I think this topic is relevant in so far as it relates to understanding the will/plan of God for creation(All Creation)I know it has been stated several times that the op is not answerable because scripture does not clearly address this matter.We have even been cautioned not draw conclusions from silence.
I both get and appreciate the value of the assessment of the situation here,yet I submit to you,that this amounts to a very problematic position.To say that scripture is silent in this area,therefore we can not,nor should we intrude intellectually into areas are restricted by God,is one a cop out,and two takes all credibility away from those who build doctrine from silence.
If the bible is unclear on this matter,or worse yet silent there can be no spreading of the doctrine of eternal torment of unbelievers.If we can't even identify the precise time,or way a person is held accountable for their nature,that demands judgment from God.
We must hold still our tongue in condemning any man to eternal torment.We know why God judges,we even know what God judges,yet we say we are unclear when this judgment is applied.
If we can not settle this question through the word of God with absolute certainty,than we need to shut our mouths and leave judgment for God and go our own merry way.
Now let's deal with the salvation of infants as addressed by Ezra here,and by others who hold the same or similar view.To say that God must have as in certainty,provided atonement of sins for infants,and the mentally inform.Puts you firmly in the UR camp,you have essentially said that the cross was God's answer for those who are not able to come to a decision to choose God.
UR states that God is the savior of ALL MEN,as no man can come to God on his own.Therefore regardless of age every man is like the infant or mentally impaired who simply can't come to a place of choosing God.
Scripture actually supports the position that ALL MEN,are incapable of choosing God of their own volition.Therefore if God must save the infant,and the mentally infirmed,he must then save ALL,as we are all like the infant incapable of choosing him on our own.
I know we will argue that once a person reaches the age of accountability he is then responsible for his choices.We will say that at some point men can choose to accept God or reject him.It is at this point that God is just in judging us according to the value of our decision.
I submit to you that this argument is fundamentally flawed is supported by scripture nowhere.You will not find any mention of a age of accountability.The scripture do not teach that we all come into this world saved and justified through the cross,and then at some point have that salvation yanked away from us,and must earn it back by exercising good judgment.
We can not run to our respective schools of theological persuasion,nor claim that God has left us in the dark when confronted with this issue.We must simply see what God has said on the issue,and accept it,regardless of how this may conflict with our theological position.
We must not practice theological,nor logical dishonesty in either dodging the question,or solving by force fitting it into our already accepted belief system.We have to deal with this head on,and blindness,or silence of scripture is no excuse to go to a fall back position here.
Let us look at scripture to see whether scripture is indeed silent on this matter,or if it is screamingly loud,and abundantly clear on this issue.If it is neither,then we must not ever again challenge another creature on this earth as to the coming judgment of God.
Because if we can't clearly show them what they are being judged for,why and at what point they are being judged.Than we must shut our mouth and leave judgment in the hands of God.
This is a long post,but if we're serious about searching out the truth in Gods word then it is worth the effort it takes to read it.Otherwise why not just say that God will save those who will be saved and call it a day?
John Chp 1 vs10-1210 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power F2 to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: The following commentary is from various authors concerning the verses in John chp 1.Two arguments are key to me here,and I'm offering these arguments for your consideration.
1.)Note the word world and it's usage has to carefully weighed,and balanced;That is the same word is used to describe the universe,a particular locale,ie Jesus physical presence and a specific people,ie.. the Jewish audience,although not inclusive of the entire Jewish nation.
2.)Note the order of Sonship in vs 12,as many as received him,ie.. believed in him,to them gave he the power to include the ability to become sons of God.
Now I'll pause the argument to show commentary concerning the verses in question:
v. 10. He was in the world, as the essential Word, before his incarnation, upholding all things; but this speaks of his being in the world when he took our nature upon him, and dwelt among us; see ch. 16:28. I am come into the world. The Son of the Highest was here in this lower world; that light in this dark world; that holy thing in this sinful polluted world.
"The world," in the first two clauses, plainly means the created world, into which He came, says John 1:9; "in it He was," says this verse. By His Incarnation, He became an inhabitant of it, and bound up with it. Yet it "was made by Him" (John 1:3-5). Here, then, it is merely alluded to, in contrast partly with His being in it, but still more with the reception He met with from it. "The world that knew Him not" (1 John 3:1) is of course the intelligent world of mankind.
And the world knew him not;
that is, the inhabitants of the world knew him not as their Creator: nor did they acknowledge the mercies they received from him; nor did they worship, serve, and obey him, or love and fear him; nor did they, the greater part of them, know him as the Messiah, Mediator, Saviour, and Redeemer. But as many--individuals, of the "disobedient and gainsaying people."
I think it should be clear here that the word world is not necessarily inclusive of all mankind,it can indeed be limited to a specific group of people,or at the very least does not by reason of it's implication include all,as not all Israel ie.. the world recognized him not.It was simply the greater part of Israel,i.e.. the world who did not.
Now for the second part of the argument,see commentary on vs 12:
The Father predestinated men to the adoption of children, secures this blessing for them in the covenant of his grace, and puts them among the children, and assigns them a goodly heritage: the Spirit, and who is therefore called the spirit of adoption, discovers and applies this blessing to them, and witnesses to their spirits that they are the children of God: and Christ, the word, or Son of God, not only espoused their persons, and in time assumed their nature, and by the redemption of them opened a way for their reception of the adoption of children; but actually bestows upon them the "power", as it is here called, of becoming the sons of God:
by which is meant, not a power of free will to make themselves the sons of God, if they will make use of it; but it signifies the honour and dignity conferred on such persons: so Nonnus calls it, "the heavenly honour"; as indeed, what can be a greater? It is more honourable than to be a son or daughter of the greatest potentate on earth: and it is expressive of its being a privilege; for so it is an undeserved and distinguishing one, and is attended with many other privileges; for such are of God's household and family, and are provided for by him; have liberty of access unto him; are Christ's free men, and are heirs to an incorruptible inheritance.
This is a privilege that excels all others, even justification and remission of sins; and is an everlasting one: and it also intends the open right which believers have unto this privilege, and their claim of it: hence it follows,
even to them that believe in his name;
that is, in himself, in Christ, the word: the phrase is explanative of the former part of the verse, and is a descriptive and manifestative character of the sons of God; for though the elect of God, by virtue of electing grace, and the covenant of grace, are the children of God before faith; and were so considered in the gift of them to Christ, and when he came into the world to gather them together, and save them; and so, antecedent to the Spirit of God, being sent down into their hearts, to make this known to them; yet no man can know his adoption, nor enjoy the comfort of it, or claim his interest in it, until he believes.
gave he power--The word signifies both authority and ability, and both are certainly meant here.
to become--Mark these words: Jesus is the Son of God; He is never said to have become such.
the sons--or more simply, "sons of God," in name and in nature.
believe on his name--a phrase never used in Scripture of any mere creature, to express the credit given to human testimony, even of prophets or apostles, inasmuch it carries with it the idea of trust proper only towards GOD. In this sense of supreme faith, as due to Him who "gives those that believe in Himself power to become sons of God," it is manifestly used here. The world that knew Him not" (1 John 3:1) is of course the intelligent world of mankind.
Next we will see how faith has to precede belief,so that it can not be said that belief is credited to human initiative:
He shows that the word preached is the ordinary means of working faith (v. 17): So then, ara — however; though many that hear do not believe, yet those that believe have first heard. Faith cometh by hearing. It is the summary of what he had said before, v. 14. The beginning, progress, and strength of faith, are by hearing. The word of God is therefore called the word of faith: it begets and nourishes faith. God gives faith, but it is by the word as the instrument. Hearing (that hearing which works faith) is by the word of God. It is not hearing the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but hearing the word of God, that will befriend faith, and hearing it as the word of God.
So where does faith come from? How does one get the faith that is necessary for belief?
17.So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God--"This is another confirmation of the truth that faith supposes the hearing of the Word, and this a commission to preach it."
So faith comes by hearing,and hearing by the word of God;But is this the singular means of faith.That is,does God use the spoken word,as preached by Preachers as the only agent of saving faith? Let us consider commentary of 1st Peter 3 vs1 ans 1st Corinthians 7 vs 16 as an alternative of God providing saving faith even if the preached word has failed to do so:
They also may without the word be won. That even those who have steeled themselves against the gospel and who refuse to listen to it may be quietly won by the sweet, Christian lives of their wives. 16. How knowest thou, O wife, etc. Let the Christian be gentle, forbearing, unselfish, though true to Christ, and perhaps the result will be that they will be God's means to save their partner. This has occurred in thousands of instances.
So here we have an example of saving faith coming not from the preached word of God,but rather the silent yet effective voiced of the lived word.The word put into practice which also produces saving faith.
There is one more example of saving faith being produced without the preached word here:
18. But I say, Have they not heard?--"Did they not hear?" Can Israel, through any region of his dispersion, plead ignorance of these glad tidings?
Yes, verily, their sound went--"their voice went out"
into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world--These beautiful words are from Psalms 19:4. Whether the apostle quoted them as in their primary intention applicable to his subject (as OLSHAUSEN, ALFORD, &c.), or only "used scriptural language to express his own ideas, as is done involuntarily almost by every preacher in every sermon" [HODGE], expositors are not agreed.
Lord, who hath believed our report? 17. So, then, faith cometh by hearing. Hence the need of preaching. If God by a miracle wrought faith in the heart, he could dispense with the preacher. But the divine arrangement is that it should result from hearing the word of God preached. For an example of the gospel plan, see Acts 18:8. 18. Have they not heard? Who are alluded to? Both Jews and Gentiles. The objector might say, Well, if faith comes by hearing, so few have heard that we are not responsible for our unbelief. Nay, says the apostle, the opportunity to hear has been very widely extended. In the language of the Psalmist (19:4), Their sound (that of the preachers of the gospel) is gone out into all the earth. When the vast multitude converted on Pentecost were scattered to their homes, they carried the gospel into all parts of the civilized world. Paul was now writing to the church in Rome, where no apostle had ever been.
From the things that are seen every day by all the world the psalmist, in these verses, leads us to the consideration of the invisible things of God, whose being appears incontestably evident and whose glory shines transcendently bright in the visible heavens, the structure and beauty of them, and the order and influence of the heavenly bodies.
This instance of the divine power serves not only to show the folly of atheists, who see there is a heaven and yet say, "There is no God,’’ who see the effect and yet say, "There is no cause,’’ but to show the folly of idolaters also, and the vanity of their imagination, who, though the heavens declare the glory of God, yet gave that glory to the lights of heaven which those very lights directed them to give to God only, the Father of lights. Now observe here, 1. What that is which the creatures notify to us. They are in many ways useful and serviceable to us, but in nothing so much as in this, that they declare the glory of God, by showing his handy-works,
v. 1. They plainly speak themselves to be God’s handy-works; for they could not exist from eternity; all succession and motion must have had a beginning; they could not make themselves, that is a contradiction; they could not be produced by a casual hit of atoms, that is an absurdity, fit rather to be bantered than reasoned with: therefore they must have a Creator, who can be no other than an eternal mind, infinitely wise, powerful, and good. Thus it appears they are God’s works, the works of his fingers (Ps. 8:3), and therefore they declare his glory
The constant and regular succession of day and night (v. 2): Day unto day, and night unto night, speak the glory of that God
His universal influence on this earth: There is nothing hidden from the heart thereof, no, not metals in the bowels of the earth, which the sun has an influence upon. III. To whom this declaration is made of the glory of God. It is made to all parts of the world (v. 3, 4): There is no speech nor language (no nation, for the nations were divided after their tongues, Gen. 10:31, 32) where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone through all the earth (the equinoctial line, suppose) and with it their words to the end of the world, proclaiming the eternal power of God of nature,
v. 4. The apostle uses this as a reason why the Jews should not be angry with him and others for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, because God had already made himself known to the Gentile world by the works of creation, and left not himself without witness among them (Rom. 10:18)
Here we have an example of Gods creation preaching the word in absence and in conjunction with the called Preacher,so that it can be said that the word of God has been preached throughout all the earth,leaving no excuse for any not to have faith in God,even in absence of the preached word.
So I said all of this to offer a viewpoint that Salvation is of Gods doing and his initiative.He alone is the author and finisher of our faith.Faith simply put is a gift from God,a gift extended in a general sense.So that no man can say that he has not had the invitation.
But to those who do respond to the invitation can accept no credit for having done so.In the end we are left with the fact that God chooses those that are his,not the other way around.
We have not chosen him,but he has chosen us.(John 15vs16,19,Matthew 22 vs14,1st peter 2 vs 9)
< Message edited by sunofone -- 6/10/2008 1:20:38 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/18/2008 11:13:57 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Continuation: As to what do I believe is the fate of the so called innocent,whether infant,mentally impaired,spiritually,deaf,blind,or dead.I believe what God has given me to see by clear view of scripture.
When God gave the last and final plague to Pharaoh,he killed,did not have mercy,was completely indifferent to all the first-born in the land of Egypt.
But against any of the children of Israel not a dog would move his tongue,against man or beast.
That we might know how that the Lord does put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.God did smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt,both man and beast;against all the gods of Egypt,he did execute judgment,as he is the Lord!
The only spared,and the only cause for the sparing was this:When I see the blood I will pass over you,and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you.
This is Gods view of the innocent.The innocent,those who would be spared his wrath,were those of his choosing.In fact to put it bluntly as God has no problem doing,that we might know how the Lord puts a difference between Egyptians,and Israel.
Who were spared?His seed.Why were they spared?Because he put a difference between them and the Egyptians,in others words he chose one over the other.How is it he chose to spare them?By the blood of the Lamb!
Does any of this sound familiar,or strike you as a tad bit ironic?
I'll end by saying this although there is plenty more that can be rightfully said,but forgive me for being a little lazy,although I did provide a pretty detailed post highlighting this earlier.
Jesus said I am the good Shepherd;the good Shepherd giveth his life for the SHEEP!
I am the good Shepherd,and know my sheep,and am known of mine.And other Sheep I have which are not of this fold,them also I must bring.(Roman 9 vs 6-7)and they SHALL hear my voice;and there SHALL be one fold,and one Shepherd!
But how can this be? Is there unfairness with God?
For the CHILDREN being not yet born,NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL,that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand,not of WORKS,but of HIM THAT CALLETH!
What shall we say then?Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.For he saith to Moses I will have MERCY,on whom I will have mercy,I will have COMPASSION,on whom I will have compassion.
So I believe that God has concluded that ALL have sinned and come short of his glory,and as such ALL are worthy of his wrath.It is HIS,choosing and HIS good pleasure to save SOME.As Jesus ultimately states out of his own mouth,that he GIVES HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP!
The sheep are those who the Father has given him.It's called CHOOSING,which like or not,is Gods CHOICE.I can be wrong,this is just what God has given me to see.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/18/2008 11:15:49 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
In conclusion: In regards to the op,I believe we as children of God must have theological integrity.It's tough to see things as God sees it,to love what he loves,and to hate what he hates.
Nothing cuts closer than the love we feel for our own family.The thought that a loved one would be eternally separated from God for most if not all is unbearable.
Many who refuse,or can not deal with this reality have created or accepted the doctrine of God saves all.The thought that God could negatively judge any is so unbearable,that many who hold this doctrine to be true,have admitted that if God did not save all,that they would not serve him.
Fact is many have come to accept UR out of concern for loved ones.As for me,I hope that God will indeed save all,and seeing that I am human and don't know everything,I hope I'm wrong when I say that I don't see God saving everyone,including,infants,mentally impaired,spiritually deaf,blind and dead.
The only thing I see right now and is confirmed in scripture and my spirit,is that it is the Fathers right to choose.It is his choosing,his good pleasure that I might be called a child of his,not mine.
If I love God at all,it is not because of me be,rather it is because he first loved me.God's choosing is first,my response is secondary.Fact is God draws,DRAGS,us to him.
None of us woke up one day and decided of our own will that today would be as good a day as any to choose God.If we say so than we make God a liar,because he says there are none who seek,or choose him.
Jesus says those that are his are the ones the Father chose for him.The beautiful thing about adoption is that the adopter hand picks the child.Natural birth you get what you get.If you birth a son,you get a son.
God is the adopter,he chooses those that are his,he is not a passive recipient of those of us who chose him.He has chosen us first,then we have responded to his choosing.
God operates by laws,one law is the law of sowing and reaping.
How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
God through the law of sowing and reaping has already declared that he will reap spiritual children.The seed that is sown is bound to the laws that command it.
We are Gods seed those of us who are his,and we will be his harvest,it is guaranteed.It is the Lord's doing not the seeds,the Lord's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/18/2008 3:01:13 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7898
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
Infants are incapable of responding to the Gospel, therefore God must have a provision for their salvation other than the above. Nonetheless, Scripture does not clearly address this matter, and to build a doctrine on silence is neither prudent nor necessary.
We must therefore simply commit infants who die to God's infinite grace, and allow for the fact that their sins were indeed atoned for at Calvary.
First off this is not the entire post of Ezra's.I am responding to the point he raised concerning infants salvation.The words have not been altered,nor have I taken it out of context.
Ditto regarding your post.
quote:
Scripture actually supports the position that ALL MEN,are incapable of choosing God of their own volition.Therefore if God must save the infant,and the mentally infirmed,he must then save ALL,as we are all like the infant incapable of choosing him on our own.
To the contrary, Scripture is very clear that Christ died for everyone, as the following verses say or clearly imply:
John 1:7, 29, 3:16,17, 17:21, 27, Acts 17:30, Luke 19:10, 2 Cor 5:14,15, 19, Titus 2:11, 1 Tim 1:5, 2:3, 6, 4:10, 2 pET 3:9, 1 JOHN 2:2, 4:14 and Rev 22:17.
Further, Paul included the entire human race in who will be justified through faith, in Rom 3:23-25. By moving the prepositional phrase to the beginning of the sentence which doesn't change the meaning, here is 3:23:25:
"Through faith in His blood (v.25), the entire human race (v.23) is justified freely (v.24)."
Paul could not make this statement if Christ hadn't died for everyone. Also, 1 Pet 2:1 tells us that Christ bought (agarazo) false teachers, the same word used by Paul in 1 Cor 6:20 and 1 Cor 7:23 for believers.
quote:
I submit to you that this argument is fundamentally flawed is supported by scripture nowhere.You will not find any mention of a age of accountability.The scripture do not teach that we all come into this world saved and justified through the cross,and then at some point have that salvation yanked away from us,and must earn it back by exercising good judgment.
The error is in thinking that anyone is born "saved and justified", when no one has said that, nor believes that. Further, "age of accountability" can be clearly seen by those with "open minds" in the phrase "knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right in Isa 7:15 and 16. I know they are referring to Immanuel, but the fact remains that even the humanity of our Lord came to the point of "when he knows enough". People may reject that this refers to an age of accountability, but the verse speaks of it anyway.
quote:
We can not run to our respective schools of theological persuasion,nor claim that God has left us in the dark when confronted with this issue.We must simply see what God has said on the issue,and accept it,regardless of how this may conflict with our theological position.
For me, David's comment about the death of his infant son indicates he was fully confident that he was going to see his son again. I know some think he was only referring to "going to the grave", but given David's devotion to God and full confidence in what God had promised him, there is no reason to reduce his comment to the grave, when heaven can easily be in his mind.
quote:
This is a long post
No kidding! 
quote:
but if we're serious about searching out the truth in Gods word then it is worth the effort it takes to read it.Otherwise why not just say that God will save those who will be saved and call it a day?
Isn't that what the reformed have done?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? - 6/18/2008 4:46:30 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 551
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Scripture actually supports the position that ALL MEN,are incapable of choosing God of their own volition.Therefore if God must save the infant,and the mentally infirmed,he must then save ALL,as we are all like the infant incapable of choosing him on our own.
To the contrary, Scripture is very clear that Christ died for everyone, as the following verses say or clearly imply:
John 1:7, 29, 3:16,17, 17:21, 27, Acts 17:30, Luke 19:10, 2 Cor 5:14,15, 19, Titus 2:11, 1 Tim 1:5, 2:3, 6, 4:10, 2 pET 3:9, 1 JOHN 2:2, 4:14 and Rev 22:17.
Further, Paul included the entire human race in who will be justified through faith, in Rom 3:23-25. By moving the prepositional phrase to the beginning of the sentence which doesn't change the meaning, here is 3:23:25:
"Through faith in His blood (v.25), the entire human race (v.23) is justified freely (v.24)."
Paul could not make this statement if Christ hadn't died for everyone. Also, 1 Pet 2:1 tells us that Christ bought (agarazo) false teachers, the same word used by Paul in 1 Cor 6:20 and 1 Cor 7:23 for believers.
quote:
I submit to you that this argument is fundamentally flawed is supported by scripture nowhere.You will not find any mention of a age of accountability.The scripture do not teach that we all come into this world saved and justified through the cross,and then at some point have that salvation yanked away from us,and must earn it back by exercising good judgment.
The error is in thinking that anyone is born "saved and justified", when no one has said that, nor believes that. Further, "age of accountability" can be clearly seen by those with "open minds" in the phrase "knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right in Isa 7:15 and 16. I know they are referring to Immanuel, but the fact remains that even the humanity of our Lord came to the point of "when he knows enough". People may reject that this refers to an age of accountability, but the verse speaks of it anyway.
quote:
We can not run to our respective schools of theological persuasion,nor claim that God has left us in the dark when confronted with this issue.We must simply see what God has said on the issue,and accept it,regardless of how this may conflict with our theological position.
For me, David's comment about the death of his infant son indicates he was fully confident that he was going to see his son again. I know some think he was only referring to "going to the grave", but given David's devotion to God and full confidence in what God had promised him, there is no reason to reduce his comment to the grave, when heaven can easily be in his mind.
Hi,thanks for your response.I hope to address you in the same spirit you addressed me.In my post concerning world,I showed where the same word can be used to refer to world differently.
It can refer to world as in the universe,a specific group of people as in the elect,or Israel,or gentiles,and it can refer to a specific locale as well.John chp 1 illustrates this point perfectly.
I know I offered a lot of info at one time,so I wouldn't expect you to remember every point I illustrated in one reading.See snippet of info of this here:
The world," in the first two clauses, plainly means the created world, into which He came, says John 1:9; "in it He was," says this verse. By His Incarnation, He became an inhabitant of it, and bound up with it. Yet it "was made by Him" (John 1:3-5). Here, then, it is merely alluded to, in contrast partly with His being in it, but still more with the reception He met with from it. "The world that knew Him not" (1 John 3:1) is of course the intelligent world of mankind.
And the world knew him not;
that is, the inhabitants of the world knew him not as their Creator: nor did they acknowledge the mercies they received from him; nor did they worship, serve, and obey him, or love and fear him; nor did they, the greater part of them, know him as the Messiah, Mediator, Saviour, and Redeemer. But as many--individuals, of the "disobedient and gainsaying people."
I think it should be clear here that the word world is not necessarily inclusive of all mankind,it can indeed be limited to a specific group of people,or at the very least does not by reason of it's implication include all,as not all Israel ie.. the world recognized him not.It was simply the greater part of Israel,i.e.. the world who did not.
Now let me address Paul and what he wrote in Romans 3 vs 22-25,before I get to this allow me to back up just a bit to vs 9,12 of the same chapter.Here Paul argues that That Jews and Gentiles alike are ALL under sin.ALL have turned away they have together become worthless;
Paul is clear without any speculation or misapplication of the word that ALL refers to the entire human race,every individual as he groups both the Jew and the Gentile together.
The next time Paul refers to all,it used in an entirely different sense,and again Paul is absolutely clear of it's application:This righteousness from God comes through FAITH in Jesus Christ to ALL WHO BELIEVE,there is no DIFFERENCE,FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
Notice what Paul is saying and how even in this verse is used differently.It is first used to apply to only those who believe,the same is confirmed in John's gospel which I provided previously chp 1 vs12 Yet to ALL who received him,to THOSE gave he the right to become children of God. This right is not extended to ALL,no, it is qualified by those who believe only.vs 13 confirms and further illustrates Paul's use of the word ALL in the latter part of the verse.
Paul says there is no difference,meaning no EXCEPTION,for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.What is Paul saying here? how is he applying the word difference and all here?
It is once again clear what or how Paul intends for us to understand this.Paul is kicking the legs out from under the Jews here.Imagine being taught that you were God's chosen people,that you were literally God's child by virtue of his birth,and then being told this:
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? What is Paul asking? he's asking them whether they are any better than the gentiles in the eyes of God,he's asking them if their birth right alone entitles them to the priviledge of being children of God.
He was asking them to accept that a new day had come upon them,where they were no longer entitled to the right of God's elect by virtue of their birth.Don't believe me let's let Paul finish the verse:
Not at All! emphatically NO! We have already made the charge that JEWS AND GENTILES alike are all under sin.So here goes the proper context of the word ALL in the beginning part of verse 25 FOr ALL have and fall short of the glory of God,and are justified freely by what and to whom? Their birthright?The fact that they were the seed of Abraham?
No sir,and mam it was through the redemption that came by drum roll please! CHRIST JESUS.And do pray tell how this righte | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
